To, The Hadith Haters

Hadith Doubters,

Here is a bit from "A Textbook of Hadith Studies, authenticity, compilation, classification, and criticism of hadith," by Mohammad Hashim Kamali, page 34:
"Al-Bukhari committed himself to include only the Sound hadith in his collection....
Al-Bukhari included hadith with an unbroken isnad narrated by upright and retentive individuals (al-udul al-dabitin) which were also free of defet ('illa) and oddities (shudhudh), and the narrators had met with one another."

Let's look at that sentence bit by bit,
1. "an unbroken "isnad"
That means an unbroken chain of transmission.

2. by upright and retentive individuals
"Upright" means that their reputations were completely intact. If there was the slightist bit of doubt about the narrator, Bukhari would write something like, fihi nazar, or "one has to look into him," or tarakuhu (abandoned). Hadith narrated by such people did not get included in his collection.
"Retentive" means that they were known to have good memories.

3. The narrators who received from one to the other had met with one another.

4. The hadith were themselves free from oddities and defects.

Each of those above 4 had their own rules and criteria for getting verified.

Quoting again from Kamali's "Hadith Studies," page 34-35:
"Al-Bukhari (and Muslim's) chain of isnad has been characterised as to rely in the first place on the narration of hadith from the Prophet by a verified Companion whose identity as a Companion is free of doubt. This is narrated in turn by two upright Followers, or by one Follower who is verified by at least two narrators for having transmiited hadith from the Co panions.
The third link in al-Bukhari's chain of isnad consists of an upright and retentive Successor (tabi tabi'i) from whom other narrators (in the fourth generation) have also reported.
The fifth link in al-Bukhari's isnad is likely to be al-Bukharis own shaykh/teacher who is an uprigt and retentive narrator.
He did not reord hadith from narrators whose trustworthiness  he doubted. It was very important for al-Bukhari to ensure that al least two people had narrated hadith from the preceding links, be it a Companion, Follower, Successor and so on.

Later on page 37, Kamali writes,
"Al-Bukhari's conditions of admitting a hadith as a Sahih hadith signified not only that the immediate links in the chain of isnad were contemporeries of one another, but also that they had actually met and direct hearing took place between the teacher and disciple.
....
...al-Bukhari required proof of an actual encounter between the transmitter and recipient of hadith."






Edited by Beebok - 25 November 2012 at 11:12am

Ron Webb, "And how does one obey a Messenger?  By obeying his Message, of course; but in doing so you are obeying Allah, not Muhammad."

The same is probably true of the statement attributed to Jesus in the Bible where he is supposed to have said, "if you have seen me, you have seen God."

If a king sends a messenger, and someone refuses to see the messenger, then they have in effect, refused to see the king.

Alas, we can not know what Jesus actually said from the Bible. But if he did say such a thing, this was probably his meaning.

Friendship wrote: To answer you, you have to define and explain the meaning of 'disbelievers' in a scientific way. Give its origin and application with examples.

It's really more a question of how al-Awlaki defines it, since he is the one using the word; but it's pretty obvious from the article that he is referring to all non-Muslims.

My advice is: it is wrong in Islam that is the final Message to believe in what some one says. It is not allowed for one to speak on something he does not understand. Much of our problem could have solved have we stuck to the teaching of Muhammad Rasulullah. Now, if you want me to reply, you will never understand because you do not know the history of Muhammad especially the causation of his actions.

I understand al-Awlaki's article.  I'm not sure why you don't think I would understand your reply.

Please use your common sense: If what they said is true, why did Muhammad not attack the Makkans who drove him forcefully from his birth place Makka?

Well first of all, I don't think it's true, because I don't believe the premise on which it is based, i.e. I don't believe that Muhammad (or Allah) ever intended the sunnah and hadith to become part of eternal Muslim doctrine.  But if I did, I would simply respond by saying that Muhammad was not in a position to attack anybody when he was forced from Mecca.  I have no doubt that he would have, if he could have.

The more important question is, if you don't believe it's true, then how do you refute his argument?

Assalamu alaika Ronn.

To answer you, you have to define and explain the meaning of 'disbelievers' in a scientific way. Give its origin and application with examples.
My advice is: it is wrong in Islam that is the final Message to believe in what some one says. It is not allowed for one to speak on something he does not understand. Much of our problem could have solved have we stuck to the teaching of Muhammad Rasulullah. Now, if you want me to reply, you will never understand because you do not know the history of Muhammad especially the causation of his actions.
Please use your common sense: If what they said is true, why did Muhammad not attack the Makkans who drove him forcefully from his birth place Makka? 

Friendship